Although diplomatic relations between Israel and South Africa remain disappointing, the situation is much better on the ground at the levels of trade, commerce and development. Israel has initiated a number of projects aimed at advancing South Africa’s agricultural techniques and cooperation at this level has been encouraging.
Israel’s Techno-agricultural Innovation for Poverty Alleviation (Tipa) is already providing self-sustaining market gardens and communal farming employment for segments of the Cradock community in the Eastern Cape. I was therefore surprised to learn that once again appeasement of radicals trumped common sense in yet another shameful South African UN General Assembly (UNGA) vote, this time not on the Middle East but on agriculture for development.
As reported by Ha’aretz, yesterday Israel scored a rare diplomatic victory in the UNGA when a resolution that it initiated, authored and submitted, on agriculture and sustainable development, was approved by the UN Financial and Economic committee.
Haaretz reports that Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman hailed the decision as historic. “It is the very first time that Israel initiates and authors and submits a resolution which has nothing to do with the (Arab-Israeli) conflict," Gillerman said. The resolution was passed with 118 votes in favour, none against and 29 abstentions. All 19 Arab states present at the meeting abstained. So too did South Africa.
Here’s a translation for the abstentions “We hate Israel and cannot bring ourselves to support an initiative drafted by Israel. We would rather cut off our noses.”
So why did South Africa abstain from this vote? Even Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan supported the resolution. Is it impossible for South Africa to support a resolution tabled by Israel, even one that has naught to do with Israel and the Middle East? Is our standing with the Arab States so insecure that we can't be seen to publicly support anything tabled by the little Satan?
We often lay claim to a strong and independent foreign policy informed by human rights and UN rules. But our voting record seems neither independent nor based on human rights. But South Africa’s voting record at the UN has little to do with human rights and more to do with appeasement of our radical friends. Independent? We still follow the crowd, just not the Western crowd.
I read through the resolution (you can find the resolution here, look for item 54 on Agricultural technology for development). I couldn’t find any justification for the South African abstention.
Embarrassingly, the resolution is based on various development programs that South Africa itself has spearheaded – including the Johannesburg declaration on Sustainable Development and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation on the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
The idea behind the resolution is to utilise the crucial role that agriculture can play in eradicating poverty. It calls on all Member States to make “greater efforts to promote the development and transfer of appropriate technologies to developing countries under fair, transparent and mutually agreed terms.” Furthermore, it makes calls to “support national efforts to foster the effective utilization of local know-how and technology and promote agricultural research and technologies to enable poor rural men and women to increase agricultural productivity and enhanced food security.”
It concludes with a call for all Member States to “allocate financial and technical resources to support the development of efficient, productive and environmentally sound technologies for sustainable agriculture in developing countries.”
According to the Jerusalem Post Gillerman was very critical of South Africa. "Presuming to be a leader of the African continent, and as a member of the Security Council, for them to abstain on a resolution which Africa will be a main beneficiary of is shameful" he said.
It’s another shining example of our Dr Jekyl and Mrs Hyde diplomacy. In practice we agree with and are benefactors of Israel’s programmes to share its agricultural technology (see the Tipa project). Yet we are unwilling to lend public support to the ideas espoused by these projects in a forum where they are presented by Israel.
Shameful indeed.
Related
- Here's a link to the UN Watch's response to South African criticism following a Sunday Times story based on UN Watch reports exposing the South African government for a foreign policy that runs counter to South Africa’s human rights ethos.
When you remember that there are more than 29 states in the Ogrgainzation of the Islamic Conference and in the Arab League, one is astounded to learn that SA is not only the most hostile country in the world to Israel outside the Arab/Islamic world, but also more hostile than the more moderate Arab and Islamic states.
Nice...
Posted by: Gary | December 14, 2007 at 12:24